Hi Erland,
> I've been bashing my head against a wall for the past couple of days
> trying to figure this out. It's frustrating because it seems like it
> should be such a simple thing.
I cannot be so simple if you think of the C++ side as being unaware of
the Python layer. Each time the C++ function is called Boost.Python has
to create a new Python object. I believe it is very difficult or maybe
even impossible to reliably return the same Python object like you expect.
> BarPtr getBar()
> {
> return mBarInstance;
> }
I think your example can be made to work like this (untested):
In the file with the Python bindings:
boost::python::object getBar_wrapper()
{
static boost::python::object result = getBar();
return result;
}
With:
def("getBar", getBar_wrapper);
But I've not tested it.
> Note that I am using a global mFooInstance for
> simplicity, but in reality such object will be held as members
That still seems doable, via a wrapper object.
> or in containers.
If you have pure C++ containers in mind I think it is possible only
via virtual functions that you override in a wrapper object.
But maybe the best solution is something else, without requiring object
identity:
- Add all data attributes to the C++ object (and use .def_readonly() or
.def_readwrite()).
Then the state of the object is preserved naturally.
- Inject additional Python methods as described in the Boost.Python tutorial:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_43_0/libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/html/python/techniques.html#python.extending_wrapped_objects_in_python
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Cplusplus-sig mailing list
Cplusplus-sig@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
